Appeal 6004777

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacement of a live/work unit to a single residential dwelling (C3 Use Class) along with landscaping and other associated works at [site address] , [site address] , Worcestershire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/01543/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Wychavon District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (the SWDPR 2026) was adopted by the Council on 25 March 2026 and replaces, in full, the South Worcestershire Development Plan, 2016 (the SWDP 2016). This appeal was received before the adoption of SWDPR 2026 and as such, at that time it was emerging policy and Policies from the SWDP 2016 were referred to in the decision notice.

I have received copies of the relevant adopted SWDPR 2026 policies, and both main parties have had an opportunity to comment on them. I have, therefore, determined the appeal against the recently adopted policies.

Following the adoption of the SWDPR 2026 the Council has confirmed that it is no longer seeking to defend either of the two reasons for refusal. However, for completeness I have assessed the appeal before me.

As part of the appeal the appellant submitted a legal agreement, and a supplementary agreement, which relate to [name]. I have addressed these in my reasoning.

Moreover, as part of the appeal the appellant submitted revised plans indicating bat mitigation measures and a [name], dated November 2025. Although this is new information and represents a change to what was considered by the Council at the application stage, it was available to the Council at the appeal, and they had an opportunity to provide comments on it. Consequently, no party would be prejudiced if I were to take this information into account in my decision.

The main issues are:  whether the proposed development would provide a suitable location for housing, with specific regard to the supply of employment premises within the District; and  the effect of the development on biodiversity.

The appeal site comprises two former poultry sheds and associated land. The buildings benefit from planning permission for conversion to a live/work unit which was allowed on appeal1. From the appeal decision letter, the conversion was allowed under Policy RES7 of the Wychavon District Local Plan, a version of the local policy in place prior to the SWDP 2016. Notwithstanding the details on the current appeal scheme, that approval comprised 75% residential space and 25% workspace including a meeting area and office for three to four people.

The Council assessed the current proposal against Policy SWDP12 of the SWDP 2016 which, amongst other matters, sought the retention of existing employment sites in rural areas and required proposals for non-employment use of employment buildings to be marketed for employment, tourism, leisure, or recreation purposes for at least 12 months. The appellant had not carried out any marketing.

However, Policy SWDP12 of the SWDP 2016 has now been superseded by Policy SWDPR15 of the SWDPR 2026. The new policy seeks to safeguard existing employment sites in rural areas for employment use. Nevertheless, it only now requires marketing of employment buildings where the proposal is for conversion of the existing building to a non-employment use. As the appeal proposal is for demolition of the existing buildings and replacement with a new dwelling the appeal proposal would not conflict with Policy SWDPR15 of the SWDPR 2026 and the proposed development would provide a suitable location for housing, with specific regard to the supply of employment premises within the District.

The additional information provided in the [name] includes nocturnal surveys for bats, which was identified as a requirement in the original [name]. The surveys found the roosts of six different bat species within the existing buildings but confirms that these are not maternity or hibernation roosts. As the proposal is to demolish the existing buildings the bat species, which are [name] (EPS), would be affected. 1 APP/H1840/A/12/2175319

Regulations 9(1) and 9(3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) requires a competent authority to have regard to the requirements of the associated Directive so far as it may be affected by the exercise of its functions. This includes any proposal that might lead to the deterioration or destruction of the breeding sites and resting places of EPS under Article 12(1)112. This includes bats and the places that they roost.

The revised plans submitted with the appeal include the provision of a night roost for bats within a lean-to roof extending from the proposed car port. The Bat Characterisation Survey also provides details of other mitigation measures and a method statement for during the demolition and construction works. This would provide appropriate mitigation and I, therefore, have no compelling evidence that the development would be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the bat species concerned at a favourable conservation status.

The development would be required to apply for a licence from Natural England due to the presence of the EPS. The consultation response from Natural England did not object to the proposal on the basis of potential harm to bats, or their roosting spaces, nor are any concerns raised over licensing issues. I have no reason to doubt that a mitigation license would not be issued.

Schedule 7A ([name] in England) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other legislation requires the provision of at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat. The appeal proposal would be required to provide [name] (BNG) to comply with the legislation. As the land around the proposed dwelling, within the red edge of the application site, would be used for domestic garden it would not be possible to provide BNG within the site.

The appellant also owns land outside of the red edged area (outlined in blue on the submitted plans). Nevertheless, they have also advised that the future of this land is uncertain, and it may be sold. They have, therefore, not sought to rely on this land for the provision of off-site BNG and the submitted [name] (December 2025) confirms that off-site credits are to be purchased, which the legislation allows for.

Although there is no requirement for me to resolve how the BNG is to be provided at this stage the submitted legal agreements would secure the purchase of off-site credits. I note the concerns of the Council Ecologist over the wording of the legal agreement and whether it would secure off-site units within the Council area, or the wider National Character Area. However, I am content that the legal agreements satisfy the tests for planning obligations set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010). They directly relate to the development and are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. As such, I am satisfied that the legal agreements can be relied upon to secure the delivery of BNG and the payment of a monitoring fee to the Council.

The site also lies near to the [address] Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations) requires the decision maker to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) where there are likely significant effects from the proposal, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. This responsibility falls to me as the competent authority in the context of this appeal.

The SAC is designated for its woodland and parkland habitats and ancient trees, all of which support invertebrates. The SSSI is designated for its invertebrate populations and its botanical interest and grassland habitat. The consultation response from Natural England advised that the development would not likely cause a significant effect on the qualifying features of the SAC and SSSI and there is no evidence before me to suggest I should reach a contrary conclusion. As the competent authority for the purpose of the habitat regulations, I am satisfied that permission could be granted and that a full Appropriate Assessment is not required.

For the reasons given above, subject to conditions and subject to the legal agreements, the appeal proposal would not adversely affect biodiversity and would, therefore, comply with Policy SWDP29 of the SWDPR 2026 which, amongst other matters, seeks to resist development that would compromise the favourable conditions of species of principle importance and requires development to consider habitats and biodiversity.

The appeal site lies near to a number of Grade II Listed Buildings. The nearest are [address] and [site address] . The significance of both of these properties lie in their architectural and historic interest. [site address] is part of a larger range of buildings including Glearings. The setting of [address], [site address] and Glearings includes their gardens, boundaries, and the road leading from the village to the appeal site, which also serves as access to [site address] . Mindful of the statutory duty set out in s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have had regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed buildings.

Due to its height, set-back position on the site, and the surrounding landscaping, the existing building does not positively contribute to the setting of any of the listed buildings. Moreover, the appeal proposal would not be visible from near any of the three listed buildings identified, or any of the other listed buildings in [site address] . I, therefore, find that the appeal building would not affect the setting of [address], [site address] , or Glearings, or any of the other listed buildings, or the contribution that the setting makes to the significance of these heritage assets. Consequently, I find that the appeal proposal would not affect the setting of the listed buildings or the significance that the setting makes to the heritage assets or how they are appreciated.

The site is also outside but next to the [site address] Conservation Area (CA). As far as it is relevant to the appeal, I consider that the significance of the CA is mainly derived from the layout of the village, the historic social hierarchy, the number of historic buildings and the contribution the natural environment, including the surrounding rural landscape, provides to the settlement.

However, given the position of the appeal site and the surrounding landscape there are intervening features between the site and the CA which restrict the contribution the site makes to the setting as a whole. Furthermore, as with the effect on the Listed Buildings, the existing buildings are not positive in the setting of the CA and the proposed dwelling would positively enhance the limited contribution the appeal site makes to the setting of the CA.

The Council has indicated the conditions that it considers would be appropriate. I have considered these in light of the Planning Practice Guidance. Although not suggested by the Council, conditions relating to the time limit for implementation and the approved plans are necessary to provide certainty.

Conditions requiring the details of the external materials to be used in the construction of the dwelling, and the hard surfacing of the site, are also necessary in order to protect the character and appearance of the area. However, the details of these materials are not required prior to any work commencing on site and I have, therefore, altered the trigger for these conditions.

In order to comply with Policy SWDPR39 of the SWDPR 2026 the submitted [name] should be complied with, so as to ensure that site drainage and run-off would be managed in a sustainable and co-ordinated way. Moreover, to comply with Policy SWDPR37 a scheme of renewable and low carbon energy should be submitted to and approved by the Council so as to increase the energy efficiency of the building. However, this information is not required before the commencement of the development, and it is a matter that can be secured before above ground works.

Given the presence of existing trees and hedges around the appeal site it is also appropriate to secure an [name] and Tree Protection Plan. However, these matters can be secured under one condition, and I have revised the wording accordingly. Nevertheless, given that the proposal is for a single dwelling it is not necessary to require the submission of a detailed landscaping scheme, or the details of its ongoing maintenance as this would be inappropriate for the scale of the development and for a domestic garden.

Due to the evidence of bat species within the existing buildings, it is necessary to secure a construction environmental management plan (CEMP) and lighting details so as to ensure that the demolition, construction, and ongoing occupation of the dwelling would be carried out sensitively and maintain the favourable conservation status of the species. It is also appropriate and necessary to secure the bat mitigation measures. However, as this is now detailed in the submitted [name], I have altered the condition to be a compliance condition rather than one requiring the submission of details.

However, I have not included the proposed Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) condition as, on the basis of the submitted information, the BNG is to be provided through the purchase of off-site BNG credits. Consequently, a condition to ensure that the ecological enhancements within the appeal site are implemented, managed, and retained can be secured through the implementation of a condition to require the bat mitigation measures. The off-site biodiversity enhancements and objectives will be secured separately through the BNG process and the legal agreements.

I have also not included the suggested conditions relating to the provision of secure and covered cycle parking as this can be provided for within the proposed covered parking area or a domestic shed. Neither have I included a condition to require three parking spaces as the approved plans clearly indicate an area that would be more than sufficient for parking and turning of vehicles. Given the submitted plans and the scale of the development I find that these conditions are not necessary.

Informatives are not added to appeal decisions. The appellant should be aware of these from the Council’s evidence, and I have, therefore, not included them.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: X_00_000_001 rev P0, P_00_005_001 rev P1, P_00_005_002 rev P1, 2438-P-00-100_001 rev P1, 2438-P-00-200_001 rev P1, 2438-P-00- 201_001 rev P1, 2438-P-00-300_001 rev P0 and 2438-P-00-301_001 rev P0.

No development shall take place (including any ground works, demolition, or clearance) until a construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall be informed by the [name] by [name] dated September 2025 and shall include the following:  Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities;  Identification of “biodiversity protection zones;”  Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements);  The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features;  The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present;  Responsible persons and lines of communication;  The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person;  Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers, and warning signs. The approved CEMP shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the demolition and construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details.

No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until a scheme for the protection of the retained trees (the tree protection plan) and the appropriate working methods (the arboricultural method statement) in accordance with the [name] 5837: Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations (or in an equivalent [name] if replaced) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme for the protection of the retained trees shall be carried out as approved.

No development above ground level shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwelling hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No development above ground level shall take place until a lighting design strategy for biodiversity has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall include the following: a. Identification of the areas/features on site that are particularly sensitive for nocturnal wildlife, including bats, and that are likely to cause disturbance in or around their breeding sites and resting places, or along important routes used to access key areas of their territory, for example, for foraging; and b. Show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent nocturnal animals from using their territory or having access to their breeding sites and resting places. This will include the provision of dark corridor conditions for commuting routes. All lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the strategy, and these shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the strategy. No other external lighting shall be installed without prior consent from the local planning authority.

No development above ground level shall take place until details of renewable and/or low carbon energy generation measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The measures shall contribute to at least 20% of the predicted energy requirements of the development. The details to be submitted shall include: -  the overall predicted energy requirements of the approved development;  the predicted energy generation from the proposed renewable/low carbon energy measures; and  an implementation timetable for the proposed measures. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, details of hard surfacing materials shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, the details set out in the submitted [name] shall be fully implemented and remain thereafter.

The bat mitigation, compensation, enhancement and monitoring, detailed in the [name], dated November 2025, shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable. On completion the works shall be inspected by a suitably qualified ecologist and a statement of conformity, as well as a copy of the bat licence, shall be submitted to the local planning authority to ensure that the proposed works have been completed as approved. *** END OF CONDITIONS ***